bing181

One of them being that he's not yet a Dees player, only "training with".

Not only hyperbole, but if stats are anything to go by, irrelevant. e.g. In 2018 we were indeed the most clanger-prone team in the comp. Closely followed by ... the two grand finalists, Richmond and GWS - neither of whom are exactly shining lights when it comes to disposal efficiency either. FWIW, stats-wise, best kicking side (best DE, fewest clangers) are the Bulldogs.

Imagine what he might have achieved with a full pre-season. Brownlow?

That's fine Saty. But last year the *other* clubs didn't have shorter pre-seasons. Though even "shorter" is a misnomer, it was largely non-existent for many, and thus the team as a unit, which more than anywhere else is where we paid the price. Astonishing that someone who spends so much time watching training doesn't understand why they do it.

Youthfulness and inexperience will limit how far we go, so no premiership. But we will at times put the fear of god into other teams.

All that means is that some picks are more speculative than others, not that none are speculative.

When you watch that, you even wonder why he fell to pick 12.

Another thing here which is a bit of a Taylor trait, is picking players who may have under-performed in their draft year due to injury and the like. Rivers missed the whole pre-season this year ... and we all know how that plays out. Will be interesting to see just what he's capable of with a pre-season or two under his belt.

Many of the criticisms of the choices made here demonstrate why a dual Brownlow player like Nat Fyfe falls through to pick 20. Too skinny, too small to be a KP player, too tall to be a mid etc. etc. People are too often focused on what these kids *can't* do, rather than what they can, especially when what's missing are things that can be worked on or will come with time/training/experience. Really pleased with the selections, even Pickett. Mongrel + skills + intensity at the ball/carrier. The rest will come. Lack of disposals? The great man himself, Liam Jurrah NEVER had a 20 disposal game, and across his career averaged around 11 disposals a game.

Like the draft a lot. You'd think we'd have 3 long-termers, which would be batting above average. Not sure that the first two are as speculative as some people are making them out to be, and will be interesting to see where we are with them, even as early as Round 1. Wouldn't mind betting all 3 will play at some stage next year.

Knightmare: Melbourne pick 32 = Trent Rivers. A surprise to see Rivers drop this far after talk he would go somewhere around 20. Displays class off half-back and can win it when pushed through the midfield. A good pick here. #AFLDraft

Every pick is a speculative pick. None of us has a crystal ball.

I think you'll find it's what a few have been saying. It's a looooong way back, and with no certainties.

Not going to hurt membership either. (OK, not talking about moving mountains here, but a bit of X-factor always helps).

He's not going to last till 28.

Access seems to work through their Supercoach Facebook page (as is often the case?): https://www.facebook.com/supercoach/posts/-an-injury-free-jack-viney-is-relishing-the-pre-season-grind-under-fitness-boss-/10156563300266440/

No it doesn't. Though if one article is enough to "put significant doubt on sports science", then I'd suggest you read it again, as what it's pointing out are the shortcomings of generalising conclusions from low-data studies. An example of this would drawing conclusions from a single article.

We'll get Collingwood to pay for it.

Stats/history for pick 28. A few decent players there: https://www.draftguru.com.au/picks/28 And FWIW, pick 22 isn't really any better, not historically, though going the other way, pick 29 has thrown up some real gems. Of course, you can get great players or duds at any pick.

I would have thought that you have a better chance at getting a 200 game A grader with 2 picks inside the top 20 than 1 pick inside the top 10. Be interested to see any stats that prove/disprove this.

Yes, impresses supporters. But if players are following their programs, has zero impact on anything else.

FWIW, I'm also quite passionate about cycling, and one thing we've seen over the last decade is a move away from volume to intensity-based training (e.g. HIT training). It's what's key to training with power meters, and the recommendations that go with that.

He refers to himself as what he is: High Performance Manager. At Arsenal he was Director of High Performance. Misson was Elite Performance Manager, a term that other clubs use as well. But heh, why bother with facts when you get in a little revisionism and hindsight bias.

He did actually. Armstrong is famous for doing more training, and targeted training than most other pros of his era.

Cough.